COLUMBIA  UBRARIES  OFFSITE 

HEALTH  SCIENCES  STANDARD 


HX64099059 
QP45  .Am33  The  Reality  of  human 


RECAP 


T" 


The  Reality  of 

Human  Vivisection 

A   REVIEW 

OF  A  LETTER   BY   WILLIAM   W.    KEEN,   M.D.,   LL.D. 
LATE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  AMERICAN  MEDICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


'*Homo  sum;  huniani 

nihil  a  me  alienum  puto." 


BOSTON 
19OI. 


QP^T 


jQ/>933 


Columbia  5Bnit)em'tp 

College  of  ^fjj'jsiciansi  anJj  ^urgeong 
Hibrarp 


Digitized  by  tlie  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2010  witli  funding  from 

Open  Knowledge  Commons  (for  the  Medical  Heritage  Library  project) 


http://www.archive.org/details/realityofhumanviOOkeen 


The   Reality  of 

Human  Vivisection 

A    REVIEW 

OF   A   LETTER   BY   WILLIAM    W.    KEEN,    M.D.,    LL.D. 
LATE    PRESIDENT    OF   THE    AMERICAN    MEDICAL    ASSOCIATION, 


''Homo  Slim  ;   Jmmatii 

nihil  a  me  aliemim  puto." 


BOSTON 
1 901. 


in 

O) 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  following  letter  was  sent  by  Hon.  James  M.  Brown, 
President  of  the  American  Humane  Association,  to  Dr.  William 
W.  Keen,  of  Philadelphia.     It  explains  itself. 

THE  AMERICAN  HUMANE  ASSOCIATION  : 

societies  of  the  united  states  organized  for  the 
Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals  and  Children. 

Toledo,  Ohio,  Oct.  4,  1900. 
Prof.  William  W.  Keen,   M.   D.,  late  President  of  the  American  Medical 

Association,  Jefferson  Medical  College,  Philadelphia. 

Dear  Sir: — My  attention  has  just  been  called  to  a  passage  in  the  published 
"  Report  of  the  Hearings"  before  the  Senate  committee,  held  at  Washington  last 
February,  on  the  bill  for  regulation  of  vivisection.  In  this  volume  the  following 
conversation  between  Senator  Galliiiger  and  yourself  is  recorded  : 

Senator  Gallinger — What  knowledge  have  you  of  the  advances  made  by 
vivisectionists  tliat  have  led  them  to  progress  from  the  brute  creation  to  the  human 
creation  in  making  these  so-called  vivisection  experiments? 

Dr.  Keen — I  presume  you  refer  to  a  pamphlet  issued  by  the  American 
Humane  Society.  I  have  only  to  say  in  reference  to  it  that  there  were  a  number 
of  experiments  which  I  would  utterly  cindemn.  Of  the  experiments  narrated  in 
that  pamphlet,  I  have  looked  up  every  one  that  I  could.  Only  two  are  alleged  to 
have  been  done  in  America.  Many  of  them  are  so  vague  and  indefinite  tliat  I 
could  not  look  them  up,  but  as  to  those  that  I  could,  some  are  garbled  and  inac- 
curate ;  not  all  of  them,  observe. 

A  statement  of  this  character,  based  upon  such  authority,  it  is  impossible  to 
ignore.  Proceeding  from  one  less  eminent  than  yourself  in  that  profession  which 
you  represent  and  adorn,  it  might  pa^s  without  notice,  but  coming  from  you,  sir, 
such  a  charge  must  be  investigated  and  probed  to  the  fullest  extent.  Its  impor- 
tance is  evident,  and  in  testing  its  accuracy  you  will  give  me,  I  trust,  every  assist- 
ance within  your  power. 

First :  Regarding  the  cases  of  experimentation  upon  human  beings  recorded 
in  our  pamphlet,  "  Human  Vivisection,"  you  informed  the  .Senate  committee  that 
"  Many  of  Ihem  are  so  vague  and  indejinite  that  I  could  not  look  them  up."  We 
challenge  the  accuracy  of  that  statement,  and  ask  for  proof.  Of  the  various  series 
of  experiments  upon  human  beings,  made  for  the  most  part  upon  women  and  chil- 
dren in  hospitals  and  infirmiries,  the  authorities  giv^n  in  this  pamphlet  are  as 
follows  : 


2  Introduction. 

1.  Bulletin  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  for  July,  1897. 

2.  Boston  Medical  and  Surgical  Journal  for  Aug.  6  and  13,  1896  : 

The  Philadelphia  Polyclinic  for  Sept.  5,  1896. 

3.  New  York  Medical  Record  iox  Sept.  10,  1893. 

4.  The  British  Medical  Journal  for  July  3,  1897  ;  the  New  Eitgland  Medi- 

cal Monthly  for  March,  1898. 

5.  The  Medical  Press  for  December  5,  1888  ;   the  British  Medical  Journal 

for  Aug.  39,  1891  ;  the  London  Times  for  June  37,  1891,  (and  other 
journals). 

6.  The  Medical  Brief  iox  June,  1899. 

7.  Ringer's   Therapeutics,  pp.   585,  588,  590,  591,  498,  503  ;  the  London 

Lancet  for  Nov,  3,  1893. 

8.  The  Newcastle  Daily  Chronicle  for  Sept.  31,  1888. 

9.  The   Medical  Press  and   Circular  for    March  39,  1899  ;   The    London 

Lancet  for  May  6,  1899,  p.  1361. 

10.  The  Allg.   Wiener  med.  Zeitung,  Nos.  50  and  51. 

11.  Deutsche  med.    Wochenschrift,  Nos.  46  and  48  of  year  1894. 
13.     Deutsche  med.   Wochenschrift,  of  Feb.  19,  1891. 

13.  Lecture  before  Medical  Society  of  Stockholm,  Sweden,  May  13,  1891. 

14.  The  British  Medical  Journal  for  Oct.  15,  1881  ;  Medical  Reprints  for 

May  16,  1893  ;  the  Nineteenth  Century  for  Dec,  1895. 

For  one  series  of  experiments  in  the  above  list,  those  made  by  Dr.  Jansen 
upon  children  of  the  "Foundlings'  Home" — with  the  "kind  permission"  of  the 
head  physician.  Professor  Medin — because,  as  he  said,  "calves  were  so  expensive," 
it  appears  that  the  only  authority  given  was  a  reference  to  his  lecture  delivered 
before  a  Swedish  medical  society  upon  a  certain  date.  Although,  so  far  as  known, 
the  facts  there  stated  have  never  been  denied,  yet  the  reference  may,  perhaps,  be 
called  indefinite.  Bat  one  case  is  not  "many."  To  what  other  of  the  references 
above  given  .did  you  refer  when  you  informed  the  Senate  committee  that  "'many 
of  them  were  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  I  could  7iot  look  them  up?'''  Had  you 
stated  that  your  library— ample  as  it  is — did  not  contain,  and  could  not  be  expected 
to  contain,  all  of  the  foreign  authorities  to  which  reference  was  made  there  would 
have  been  nothing  to  criticize.  I  must  assume,  sir,  that  you  have  not  put  forth  an 
aspersion  of  another's  reliability  merely  to  have  acknowledgment  of  the  inadequacy 
of  your  sources  of  reference  ;  that  the  proofs  of  your  statement,  covering  "wawy" 
cases,  are  available,  and,  in  the  interest  of  accuracy,  I  ask  you  to  produce  them. 

Second :  There  is  yet  another  point  to  which  I  ask  your  attention.  You  made 
the  statement  before  the  Senate  committee  that  in  regard  to  our  published  account 
of  cases  of  hum  in  vivisection,  "  many  of  them  are  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  I 
could  not  look  them  up;  but.  as  to  those  that  I  could,  some  are  garbled  and  inac- 
curate; not  all  of  them,  observe." 

This,  sir,  is  a  most  serious  charge.  You  distinctly  declared  that  of  the  cases 
personally  investigated  by  yourself,  as  quoted  in  the  pamphlet  on  "  Human  Vivi- 
section," some  are  "garbled  and  inaccurate."  We  deny  the  charge,  and  again 
challenge  production  of  evidence  upon  which  it  is  made. 

A  "garbled"  quotation  is  one  which,  by  reason  of  omission  and  perversions, 
is  essentially  unfair.  Sometimes  it  is  a  statement  from  which  parts  ar^mitted  or 
transposed  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  a  false  impression.  To  omit  quotation 
of  parts  not  directly  bearing  upon  the  question  for  the  sake  of  brevity— this  is  not 


Introduction.  3 

"garbling,"  for  all  quotation  would  then  be  impossible.  We  assert  that  in  quot- 
ing accounts  of  the  cases  of  human  vivisection  no  omissions  of  essential  facts  have 
been  made  sufficient  to  impair  the  accuracy  or  fairness  of  the  quotation.  Let  us 
put  the  matter  to  the  test.  Point  out,  if  you  can,  the  "some  cases"  which  you 
found  "garbled  and  inaccurate,"  and  in  proof  of  the  charge  quote  the  omitted  sen- 
tences or  words  7vhich^  had  they  been  inserted,  tvould  cause  you  and  the  general 
public  to  justify  and  approve  the  experiments  on  human  beings  which  we  have  so 
severely  condemned. 

Third :  You  stated,  sir,  before  the  Senate  Committee  that  only  two  experi- 
ments upon  human  beings  "are  alleged  to  have  been  done  in  America."  I  question, 
sir,  whether  that  remark  is  quite  in  accord  with  the  highest  ideals  of  truth  ;  it  is 
the  language  of  doubt  ;  it  seems  to  signify  and  imply  that  even  you  are  aware  of 
no  other  experiments  upon  human  beings  than  two  cases  which  are  thus  "alleged." 
I  am  very  confident,  sir,  that  you  will  not  venture  formally  to  assert — wliat  you 
have  seemed  to  imply — that  you  know  of  but  two  experiments  upon  human  beings 
made  in  this  country  and  recorded  in  the  medical  literature  of  the  United  Stales. 
There  is  indeed  need  of  further  enlightenment,  if  the  medical  profession  of  this 
country,  so  worthily  represented  by  yourself,  is  ignorant  of  what  has  been  done  by 
men  without  pity  and  without  conscience. 

Trusting  to  have  response  from  you  at  an  early  date,  I  am, 
Yours  most  truly, 

Jame?   M.   Brown, 

President. 

After  nearly  four  months  delay.  Dr.  Keen  made  a  long  and 
rambling  reply,  containing  innumerable  errors  and  misstate- 
ments of  every  kind,  which  he  has  caused  to  be  printed  in  the 
Jourjial  of  the  American  Medical  Association  and  in  the  Phila- 
delphia Medical  Jour 7ial  in  their  issue  of  February  23,  1901, 
and  in  pamphlet  form  for  general  circulation.  No  sufificient 
rejoinder  to  his  letter  would  be  admitted  to  the  columns  of 
these  medical  periodicals.  J>ut  such  gross  errors  should  not  be 
permitted  to  pass  unchallenged  ;  and  some  partial  exposure 
of  its  misstatements  follows  herewith. 


THE   REALITY  OF   HUMAN  VIVISECTION 

A   REVIEW   OF   DR.    KEEN'S   LETTER. 


At  last  we  have  from  the  pen  of  a  physician  and  surgeon, 
widely  known  throughout  the  United  States  what  is  practically 
an  apology  for  the  practice  of  Human  Vivisection.  Purporting 
merely  to  criticise  a  pamphlet  exposing  the  atrocity  in  ques- 
tion, he  spares  no  argument  that  might  tend  to  exonerate 
those  charged  with  this  offense,  or  that  would  cast  odium 
upon  those  who  have  unveiled  to  the  public  eye  the  horrors  of 
hospital  experimentation  upon  the  helpless  and  the  poor. 
The  appearance  of  this  defense, —  we  can  give  it  no  other 
name, — is  of  peculiar  and  painful  significance,  and  fully  justi- 
fies the  apprehensions  which  have  long  been  felt. 

Its  evolution  is  of  interest.  At  the  "Hearing"  before  a 
Senate  Committee  in  Washington,  February  2i,  1900,  Senator 
Gallinger  called  attention  of  Dr.  William  W.  Keen,  then  under 
examination,  to  certain  phases  of  scientific  experimentation 
upon  human  beings.  "  I  presume,"  said  Dr.  Keen  in  reply, 
''  you  refer  to  a  pamphlet  issued  by  the  American  Humane 
Association.  I  have  only  to  say  in  reference  to  it  that  there 
were  a  number  of  experiments  which  I  would  utterly  condemn. 
Of  the  experiments  narrated  in  that  pamphlet  I  have  looked 
up  everyone  that  I  could.  Only  two  are  alleged  to  have  been 
done  in  America.  Many  of  them  are  so  vague  and  indefinite 
that  I  could  not  look  them  up,  but  as  to  those  that  I  could, 
some  are  garbled  and  inaccurate,  not  all  of  them,  observe."* 
How  skilfully  is  vague  reprehension, — without  one  single 
specification, — mixed  with  insinuation  of  unreliability  and 
literary  fraud  !  The  president  of  the  American  Humane  Asso- 
ciation in  a    letter    printed    herewith,    challenged    Dr.   Keen 

*IIcariiij{  before  the  .Senate  Committee  (on  Vivisection)  February  2i,  1900, 
page  30. 


6  The  Reality  of  Human    Vivisection. 

to  make  good  his  words  ;  and  after  some  months'  delay,  he 
has  published  his  reply  in  the  ''Journal  of  the  American  Medi- 
cal Association  "  of  February  23,  1901,  and  printed  it  for  distri- 
bution in  pamphlet  form. 

It  is  a  document  which  it  is  difTficult  to  characterize.  By 
minutest  criticism  of  words,  by  disparagement  and  detraction 
in  all  conceivable  ways,  or  by  actual  misstatements  of  fact,  he 
has  endeavored  to  convey  the  impression  that  the  charges  of 
experimentation  upon  human  beings,  are  on  the  whole,  incredi- 
ble and  absurd ;  that  legitimate  methods  of  medical  and 
surgical  treatment  have  been  viciously  or  ignorantly  exagger- 
ated into  "  experiments," — when  there  was  no  experiment ; — 
and  that  no  cause  exists  for  denouncing  the  men  who  have 
been  charged  with  these  horrible  deeds.  Of  one  series  of  ex- 
periments only,  (the  unspeakably  vile  and  atrocious  investi- 
gations of  Menge,)  does  Dr.  Keen  afifirm  his  condemnation  ; 
but  the  intensity  of  his  disapproval  he  at  once  permits  us  to 
measure  by  the  statement  that  "  to  misrepresent  these  experi- 
ments is  scarcely  less  culpable  than  to  perform  them  !  "  Here, 
at  any  rate,  we  feel  sure  that  Dr.  Keen  speaks  his  mind  ;  and 
that  these  inoculations  of  new-born  babes, — wrapped  at  their 
birth  in  sterile  towels  and  conveyed  from  the  bedside  to  the 
laboratory  for  experimentation  (''sofort  nach  der  Geburt  in 
sterile  Tiicher  gehlilt,  und  im  Laboratorium  zu  den  Versuchen 
verwendet,")*  stand  in  his  judgment  on  a  moral  equality  with 
a  translator's  exaggeration,  or  the  blunders  of  a  copyist ! 

The  impression  of  a  careful  reader  of  Dr.  Keen's  letter  may 
be  that  in  these  apologetic  references  to  human  vivisectors  he 
has  gone  a  little  too  far.  But  should  we  not  remember  that  he 
is  writing  in  defense  of  others  ?  To  what  extent  an  advocate 
in  discharging  his  duty  may  be  allowed  to  overstep  those 
bounds  of  fairness  or  of  veracity  which  ordinarily  govern 
the  conduct  of  honorable  men,  is  a  question  upon  which  the 
highest  authorities  are  not  agreed  ;  but  it  is  certain  that  he 
may  go  very  far.  Lord  Brougham,  before  he  became  the  Lord 
Chancellor  of  England,  in  one  of  the  greatest  of  his  speeches 
delivered  before  the  House  of  Lords,  laid  down  the  law  by 
which  he  was  governed  in  the  following  terms  : 

*  Deutsche  Med    Wochenschrift,  November  29,  1894,  p.  907. 


The  Reality  of  Human    Vivisection.  7 

"  An  advocate,  by  the  sacred  duty  which'he  owes  his  client,  knows  in  the  dis- 
charge of  that  office  liut  one  person  in  the  world, — that  client  and  none  other. 
To  save  that  client  by  all  means  and  expedients,  to  protect  that  client  at  all 
hazards  and  costs  to  all  others, — and  among  others,  to  himself,  is  the  highest  and 
most  unquestioned  of  his  duties  ;  and  he  must  not  regard  the  alarm — the  suffering 
— the  torment, — the  destruction  which  he  may  bring  upon  any  other.  Nay,  separ- 
ating the  duties  of  a  patriot  from  those  of  an  advocate  and  casting  them,  if  need  be, 
to  the  wind,  he  must  go  on.  reckless  of  consequence,  if  his  fate  it  should  unhappily 
be  to  involve  his  country  in  confusion  for  his  client's  protection."* 

Human  vivisection  may  be  said  to  be  on  trial  before  Public 
Opinion.  It  has  been  impeached  as  opposed  to  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  on  account  of  its  cruelty  and  for  its  absolute  dis- 
regard of  human  rights;  and  Dr.  Keen,  let  us  say,  appears 
for  the  defense.  Now,  in  the  criticisms  we  propose  to  make 
of  Dr.  Keen's  paper,  certain  clear  distinctions  should  be 
kept  in  mind.  For  Professor  Keen,  the  skillful  surgeon,  the 
prominent  member  of  a  leading  Christian  denomination,  we 
have  great  respect.  For  Dr.  Keen,  the  specious  apologist  of 
human  vivisectors,  and  for  his  methods  of  advocacy — "  by  all 
means  and  expedients," — we  shall  not  be  sparing  in  exposure  or 
criticism.  If  we  show  that  for  the  sake  of  human  vivisectors 
he  has  hesitated  at  no  trick  of  defensive  palliation  in  behalf 
of  unspeakable  outrages  upon  the  weak  and  defenseless, 
let  it  be  understood  that  we  are  denouncing  merely  the  advo- 
cate and  not  the  man.  If  such  advocacy  has  imposed  silence 
where  we  had  hoped  for  outspoken  condemnation ;  if  he 
has  abundant  epithets  of  scorn  and  vituperation  for  the  errors 
of  a  translator,  but  no  words  of  mildest  censure  for  the  vilest 
crimes  against  Humanity, — the  inoculation  of  innocent  chil- 
dren with  foul  disease,  the  grafting  of  cancers  into  the  healthy 
breasts  of  unconscious  women  by  men  of  his  profession,  or  the 
inoculation  of  hospital  patients  with  yellow  fever  ;  if  un- 
bounded zeal  has  carried  him  even  beyond  the  borders  of 
truth,  and  caused  him  sometimes  to  rely  upon  petty  tricks  of 
duplicity  and  equivocation,  we  shall  assume  that  it  is  due  to 
that  mistaken  advocacy  which  he  so  unwisely  undertook.  Of 
that  unwisdom  we  have  no  doubt.  The  vileness  of  the  prac- 
tice, which  he  attempted  to  defend  by  interposition  of  his  pro- 

*  Speecl.es  of  Henry  F.ord  IJrougham  upon  Que^tions  relating  to  Public  Rights, 
Duties  and  Interests.  Edin.  Vol  I.,  p.  105.  I'here  are  various  readings  in  the 
original  report  of  this  speech  ;  .some  phrases  run  as  given  here. 


8  The  Reality  of  Human    Vivisection, 

fessional  repute,  no  words  can  express.  For  his  endeavors  to 
mitigate  or  turn  aside  the  execration  sure  to  overtake  it  when 
the  facts  are  fully  known,  we  believe  that  Dr.  Keen  will  one 
day  experience  the  bitterest  regret. 

For  plainness  of  speech  or  emphasis  of  denunciation  we 
shall  offer  no  apology;  the  subject  requires  it.  Again  and 
again,  as  a  method  of  defense,  Dr.  Keen  has  insinuated  against 
the  American  Humane  Association,  charges  of  literary  dis- 
honesty, the  utter  falsity  of  some  of  which — as  we  shall 
demonstrate, — he  must  have  known.  Such  methods  of  criti- 
cism demand  plain  speech.  We  shall  utter  no  words  that 
have  not  truth  for  their  basis;  we  shall  demonstrate,  rather 
than  assert;  we  shall  be  fair  and  just,  but  there  shall  be  no 
cause  on  the  part  of  human  vivisectors  or  their  apologists 
to  complain  that  our  meaning  is  vague  or  obscure. 

We  desire  to  do  Dr.  Keen  no  injustice  in  the  criticisms  we 
propose  to  make.  He  will  doubtless  protest  loudly  that  he 
sufificiently  voiced  his  condemnation  of  the  practice  in  that 
reply  to  Senator  Gallinger,  which  we  have  just  quoted.  But  such 
words  of  vague  reprehension  unaccompanied  as  they  were,  by 
one  word  of  specific  reproof, — resemble  precisely  the  denuncia- 
tions of  that  prudent  Puritan,  who  preached  most  vigorously 
against  "  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  Sin."  Such  condemna- 
tion touches  the  sensibilities  of  no  offender.  One  by  one,  in 
careful  examination  of  details  Dr.  Keen  has  weighed  some  of 
the  worst  conceivable  experiments  upon  women  and  children, 
related  in  the  pamphlet  Human  Vivisection  ;  but  which  experi- 
menter of  them  all  has  he  dared  to  denounce  ?  Not  one  has 
he  named,  or  even  referred  to,  in  any  such  way  as  would  tend 
to  hinder  the  man  from  grasping  his  hand  in  gratitude  and 
tacit  appreciation.  No  reader  of  Dr.  Keen's  paper  can  doubt 
for  a  moment  where  his  sympathies  lie.  No  "  condemnation  " 
of  his,  which  mingles  one  word  of  mild  disapprobation  with  a 
thousand  of  strenuous  defense,  is  of  the  slightest  weight. 
No  "condemnation"  has  value  which  refers  to  crime  with 
apology,  and  mentions  criminals  with  respect. 

In  attempting  to  nullify  the  disclosures  regarding  Hospital 
experimentation  made  by  the  American  Humane  Association 
in  the  pamphlet  on  Human  Vivisection,  Dr.  Keen  has  directed 


The  Reality  of  Human  Vivisection.  g 

his  attack  along  various  lines.     We  propose  to  follow  him  and 
to  consider  these  points: 

I.  The  question  of  vague  and  indefinite  quota- 
tion. Were  many  of  the  experiments  narrated  in  the 
pamphlet  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  Dr.  Keen  could 
not  verify  them  f 

II.  The  question  of  garbled  quotations.  Brevity  of 
quotation  is  often  absolutely  necessary.  Were  omissions 
made  by  the  pamphlet  of  vital  importance  for  determin- 
ing the  morality  of  the  acts  condemned,  or  were  they, 
on  the  contrary,  non-essential  to  any  such  judgment  ? 

III.  The  question  of  controversial  ethics.  Has  Hu- 
man Vivisection  been  defended  or  palliated  by  resort  to 
false  suggestion  ? 

These  are  practically  the  points  at  issue.  We  shall  prove 
that  "  many  of  the  experiments  narrated  in  the  pamphlet  " 
were  not  so  vague  or  indefinite  that  they  could  not  be 
"looked  up  ;"  that  although  some  mistakes  were  made  by 
translators  or  copyists,  they  would  not  change  condemnation 
into  approval;  and  finally  that  to  palliate  the  offenses  of 
human  vivisectors,  resort  has  been  made  to  the  suggestion  of 
inferences  manifestly  untrue. 

I. 

The  Question  of  Vague  Quotation. 

I.  In  his  reply  to  Senator  Gallinger,  before  quoted,  Dr. 
Keen  declared  regarding  the  experiments  narrated  in  that 
pamphlet  that  many  "are  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  I  could 
not  look  them  up."  In  other  words,  regarding  "many  of  the 
experiments"  he  could  not  find  proof  that  they  had  been 
made!  That  statement  was  challenged.  It  was  pointed  out 
by  the  President  of  the  American  Humane  Association  that, 
with  one  exception,  every  phase  of  experimentation  specifi- 
cally mentioned  had  some  reference  to  a  medical  authority. 
Now,  how  is  this  issue  met  by  Dr.  Keen  ? 


lo  The  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection. 

It  is  met  by  evasion.  Instead  of  acknowledging  his  error, 
Dr.  Keen,  arbitrarily,  and  without  permission  of  anyone 
changes  the  issue.  "  I  stated  "  he  says  in  his  reply  to  Presi- 
dent Brown,  "  that  many  of  the  references  were  vague  and 
indefinite."  Absolutely  untrue;  he  stated  nothing  of  the 
kind  ;  we  quoted  his  words  at  the  outset  precisely  as  they 
stand — revised  by  himself, — in  the  Report  of  the  Hearing. 
Does  he  claim  that  they  mean  the  same  thing?  Then  why 
did  he  change  them?     It  is  easy  to  see. 

Let  us  take  as  a  first  illustration  of  what  Dr,  Keen  means 
by  vagueness,  the  horrible  "  cancer-grafting "  cases  of  cer- 
tain European  surgeons,  to  which  this  pamphlet  first  directed 
attention  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  To  a  hospital  in  France 
a  poor  woman  was  brought  one  day  suffering  from  cancerof  the 
breast.  An  operation  was  necessary  ;  she  consented,  and  was 
put  under  the  influence  of  chloroform.  After  the  operation, 
and  while  the  patient  was  still  unconscious  from  effect  of  the 
anaesthetic,  the  operating  surgeon.  Dr.  Doyen,  carefully  in- 
serted a  bit  of  the  cancer  he  had  just  removed  into  the  healthy 
breast  of  the  victim.  The  wound  healed  ;  nothing  at  first  ex- 
cited the  patient's  apprehension  or  alarm.  Then,  some  weeks 
after,  she  found,  doubtless  to  her  unspeakable  horror  and  des- 
pair, a  new  cancer  in  the  opposite  breast !  And  the  crime  was 
repeated. 

Let  us  give  a  brief  summary  of  these  two  scientific  exper- 
iments in  Dr.  Cornil's  own  words:  (italics  ours.) 

"  L'operateur,  apres  avoir  enleve  cette  tumeur,  en  a  sectionne  un  tres  petit 
fragment,  et  I'a  insere  sous  la  peau  du  sain  du  cote  oppose  qui  etait parfaitment 
normal.  L'operation  avait  ete  faite  pendant  le  somnieil  chloroforniique  avec  les 
precautions  antiseptiques." 

The  second  case  was  almost  exactly  the  same. 

"Apres  I'ablation  du  sein  malade,  et  pendant  le  sommeil  chloroformique,  le 
chirurgien  insera  dans  le  tissu  glandulaire  du  sein  du  cote  oppose,  un  petit  frag- 
ment de  la  tumeur  enlevee.     La  greffe  suivit  la  meme  evolution."* 

When  Prof.  Cornil  read  an  account  of  these  human  vivi- 
sections before  the  Academy  of  Medicine  in  Paris,  at  the 
meeting   of  June  23,  1891,   the   members,— horrified    by  such 

*  Bulletin  de  T Academic  de  Medicine,  1891,  p.  go6.  "  Sur  les  greffes  et  inocu- 
iations  de  cancer. 


The  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection.  ii 

disclosures, — hastened  to  record  their  deepest  condemnation. 
"  In  the  name  of  French  surgery,  in  the  name  of  morality,  I 
cannot  too  emphatically  protest  against  this  experiment," 
exclaimed  Dr.  Leon  Le  Fort.  "  It  is  surgical  immorality," 
cried  Dr.  Larrey.  "  It  is  an  essentially  criminal  act,"  said 
Dr.  Moutard-Martin.  Then  in  the  outcry  of  abhorrence 
that  arose  throughout  Europe,  it  was  discovered  that  exactly 
similar  experiments  had  not  only  been  made  in  Germany, 
but — worst  of  all, — they  had  been  openly  described  at  meetings 
of  physicians  and  surgeons,  one  of  which  was  the  i8th 
Congress  of  the  German  Medical  Association  !  The  special 
correspondent  of  the  British  Medical  Journal,  wrote  thus 
from  Berlin  : 

"  The  question  whether  a  surgeon  is  justified  in  inoculating  a  patient  with 
minute  particles  of  cancer  is  being  as  much  discussed  in  medical  circles  in  Berlin 
as  it  is  in  Paris.  A  Dr.  Leidig — not  a  medical  man  but  a  lawyer, — has,  in  the 
public  press  accused  Professors  Hahn  and  von  Bergmann  of  having  inoculated 
carcinortiatous  patients  witli  particles  of  cancer,  in  places  where  they  were  not  dis- 
eased and  of  having  thus  artificially  produced  new  cancerous  foci.  In  proof  of  his 
accusation,  Dr.  Leidig  quoted  the  following  passages."* 

One  of  the  proofs  brought  forward  by  Dr.  Leidig  was  the 
following  extract  from  the  report  given  by  Dr.  Hahn  of  his 
own  investigation  : 

"  Herr  E.  Hahn  glaubt  durch  ein  Experiment  die  Uebertragbarkeit  des  Car- 
cinoms  erwiesen  zu  haben.  Er  Iiat  einer  Patientin  die  an  Carcinome  dissemine  litt 
von  drei  Knotchen  mit  einer  Scheere  auf  Art  der  Reverdin'  schen  Transplantation 
Thiele  entfernt  und  an  ganz  entfernten  Stetten  implantirt.  Alle  drei  Knotchen 
sind  fortgewachsen  und  haben  sich  ah  Carcinome  weiter  entwickeli."\ 

The  correspondent  of  the  British  Medical  Journal  translates 
the  above  confession  of  guilt  as  follows  :  "  Herr  E.  Hahn  be- 
lieves that  he  has  proved  by  experiment  that  cancer  is  trans- 
ferable. He  had  removed  particles  of  three  nodules  from  a 
female  patient  suffering  from  ^^ra'/z^;//^  ^/.y.y^/;////<?  with  scissors, 
and  had  implanted  them  in  different  spots  of  the  body.  All 
three  particles  increased  in  size  developing  in  cancer." 

*  British  Medical  Journal,  July  25,  1891,  p.  214.  See  also  its  issue  of  Aug.  29, 
1 891,  p.  495- 

t  Deutsche  mcd.  Wochenschrift,  10  Nov.,  1887,  p,  987. 


12  The  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection. 

It  was  the  surgical  scandal  of  all  Europe.  The  British 
Medical  Journal  editorially  denounced  the  French  surgeon's 
experiments  in  cancer-grafting  as  "an  outrage,  not  only  upon 
the  unhappy  persons  referred  to,  but  upon  the  whole  medical 
profession."  *  The  daily  press  discussed  these  abominable  in- 
vestigations with  various  expressions  of  popular  abhorrence 
and  condemnation.  And  certainly  if  any  question  affects  the 
welfare  of  everyone,  it  is  this.  What  wife,  mother  or  sister 
undergoing  a  surgical  operation,  will  be  safe,  if,  while 
unconscious,  such  "experiments'*  may  be  made,  and  the 
crime  afterward  condoned  and  tacitly  justified  on  the  part  of 
American  surgeons,  by  all  failure. to  condemn  the  perpe- 
trators ? 

To  this  phase  of  human  vivisection  the  pamphlet  devoted 
more  space  than  to  any  other.  Of  the  occurrence  of  these  in- 
famous deeds,  Dr.  Keen,  as  an  educated  surgeon,  could  have 
had  no  more  doubt  than  he  has  of  the  late  outbreak  in  China, 
regarding  which,  we  dare  say,  his  only  source  of  information  is 
that  daily  press,  which  he  holds  so  greatly  in  contempt. 
Granted  that  the  charge  is  true,  how  can  he  ward  it  off  ? 
Does  he  denounce  these  criminals?  Does  he  join  the  leading 
surgeons  of  France  in  stigmatizing  these  acts  as  "  surgical  im- 
morality," and  as  "  essentially  immoral  ?  "  No.  Not  one  word 
of  censure  escapes  Jiim.  But  looking  closely,  he  discovers  that 
certain  quotations  from  editorials  in  German  newspapers  refer- 
ring to  this  scandal  of  the  day  are  without  exact  dates  ;  he 
finds,  too,  that  Dr.  Leidig's  accusation  has  no  date,  (although 
it  was  referred  to  by  the  British  Medical  Journal  in  a  passage 
just  quoted,  equally  without  such  specification),  and  forthwith 
Dr.  Keen  holds  up  these  trifles  in  such  way  as  to  convey  the 
impression  that  the  whole  charge  rests  upon  anonymous  news- 
papers !  Of  five  "  references  "  which  Dr.  Keen  declares  were 
impossible  of  consultation,  four  were  nothing  but  editorial  ex- 
pressions of  opinion  upon  occurrences  which  were  vouched  for 
by  medical  references,  which  were  of  notoriety  throughout 
Europe,  and  of  the  occurrence  of  which  he  had  no  more  doubt 
than  he   has    of   the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  !     And  yet  these 

*  British  Medical  Journal,  July  4.  1891,  p.  23.  A  reference  to  these  human 
vivisections  was  also  printed  in  the  Medical  Press  of  London,  Dec.  5,  1888  (p. 58  3) 


The  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection.  I3 

comments,  these  expressions  of  public  opinion  upon  events 
that  were  the  universal  scandal  of  the  time, — comments  that 
did  not  purport  to  be  proofs, — Dr.  Keen  has  the  face  to  bring 
forward  in  support  of  his  charge  that  "  many  (experiments) 
zvere  so  vag7ie  and  indefinite  that  I  could  not  look  them  up  !  " 
What  are  we  to  think  of  a  writer  who  regards  such  a  trick  as 
justifiable,  or  believes  in  such  methods  of  advocacy  ?  In  failing 
to  condemn  the  men  guilty  of  these  crimes, — eminent  sur- 
geons though  they  may  be, — any  American  surgeon  makes  a 
terrible  mistake.  Possibly  there  may  be  in  this  country  half 
a  dozen  persons, — certainly  not  more, — who  dream  that 
American  women  needing  a  surgeon's  aid,  would  prefer  to 
trust  themselves  to  the  skill  of  an  operator  who  has  no  words 
of  condemnation  for  the  perpetrators  of  the  foulest  crimes 
upon  unconscious  womanhood. 

2.  Take  another  illustration  of  Dr.  Keen's  proof  that  many 
experiments  were  so  vague  and  indefinite  he  could  not  look 
them  up.  The  pamphlet  on  Human  Vivisection  gives  a  quota- 
tion from  Tertullian,  who  lived  nearly  seventeen  hundred  years 
ago.  The  quotation  certainly  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
practices  of  to-day  ;  it  was  merely  of  historical  interest.  Dr. 
Keen  looks  for  it,  and  then,  referring  to  the  volume  to  which 
it  was  credited,  boldly  asserts,  that  "  no  such  quotation  exists 
on  pages  430-433.  Now,  let  us  suppose,  that  some  reader 
who  does  not  care  to  take  Dr.  Keen's  word  as  infallibly  cor- 
rect, concludes  to  test  this  assertion.  He  opens  the  volume 
referred  to  at  page  430  ;  finishes  the  sentence  at  foot  of  the 
page, — and  there  is  the  very  quotation  on  the  second  line  of 
page  431,  where  he  cannot  possibly  help  seeing  it  if  he  reads 
the  page  to  which  it  was  ascribed  !*  No  reader  who  takes  the 
trouble  to  consult  the  volume  can  doubt  that  Dr.  Keen  saw  it. 
The  temptation,  however,  to  make  a  printer's  error  (430,  433, 
instead  of  430-433,)  do  service  as  an  imputation  of  literary  dis- 

*  Tertullian,  De  Anima,  Edinburgh  Edition.  Tran.  by  Holmes.  Vol.  II, 
pp.  43«-433- 

■■  There  is  tliat  Ilerophiius,  the  well-known  surgeon,  or  (as  I  may  rather 
call  him)  l>utcher,  who  cut  up  no  end  of  persons  in  order  to  investigate  the  secrets 
of  Nature,  who  ruthlessly  handled  human  creatures  to  discover  tiieir  form  and 
make."  Tiie  pamphlet,  it  is  true,  used  the  word  *' physician'"  in  place  of 
"  surgeon,"  but  we  [)resunie  this  is  hardly  an  error  which  would  lead  Dr.  Keen  to 
deny  existence  of  the  paragraph. 


14  The  Reality  of  Human    Vivisection. 

honesty  was  too  strong  for  him  to  resist,  especially  since  he 
knew  that  not  one  reader  in  a  thousand  would  ever  take  the 
trouble  to  test  the  veracity  of  his  statements.  But  how  hard 
pressed  must  be  the  cause  that  in  defense,  resorts  to  tricks  like 
this  ! 

3.  Regarding  Finger's  abominable  experiments  upon 
women  who  had  just  passed  through  the  pangs  of  child-birth, 
the  reference  in  the  pamphlet  gave  the  name  of  the  periodical 
and  the  number,  but  in  some  way  omitted  the  year.  ''No  such 
paper  by  Finger  is  published  in  that  journal,  at  least  from  1890 
to  the  present  time,"  cries  Dr.  Keen, — wisely  modifying  his 
emphatic  statement  by  a  saving  clause.  The  account  of  these 
experiments,  as  stated  in  Human  Vivisection  are  to  be  found  in 
the  volume  for  1885  of  the  periodical  named. 

We  shall  again  refer  to  this  charge  of  "  vague  and  indefi- 
nite "  experiments  when  we  come  to  speak  of  a  more  serious 
matter. 

11. 
The  Question  of  Garbled  Quotations. 

Before  touching  this  question  of  inaccurate  quotation  to 
which  Dr.  Keen  has  devoted  so  much  research  and  argument, 
let  us  ask  what  the  compilers  of  Human  Vivisection 
manifestly  aimed  to  do?  Assuredly  they  did  not  attempt 
to  write  a  treatise.  The  extracts  were  brief,  and  yet  brevity 
was  unavoidable.  To  have  printed  in  full,  the  papers  from 
which  these  excerpts  were  taken  would  have  required  a  large 
volume;  the  full  translation  of  Menge's  articles  alone  would 
occupy  thirty  pages  the  size  of  this.  What  the  compilers 
evidently  sought  to  do  was  simply  this:  to  demonstrate  by 
a  few  brief  and  condensed  statements, — taken  almost  without 
exception  from  medical  sources, — the  fact  that  experimentation 
upon  human  beings  is  not  a  myth,  but  an  awful  reality,  and  that 
both  the  practice,  and  the  men  guilty  of  it  should  be  emphati- 
cally and  impartially  condemned.  When  Dr.  Keen,  attempt- 
ing to  create  doubt  and  confuse  judgment,  told  Senator  Gal- 
linger  that  some  experiments  were  "  garbled  and  inaccurate," 
he  was  challenged  to  point  out  any  such  suppression  of  facts 
as  would  cause  him  to  give   approval  to  the  deeds.     Every- 


TJie  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection.  15 

thing  that  could  possibly  tend  to  mitigate  condemnation  of 
the  perpetrators  or  throw  doubt  upon  the  reality  of  the  deed 
itself,  he  has  suggested  or  implied  in  his  letter;  but  that  open 
sanction  he  was  invited  to  give,  he  has  prudently  withheld. 
The  vilest  experimenters  he  has  failed  to  rebuke,  but  lie  dared 
not  openly  commend  tliem. 

In  the  title  given  to  his  contribution — "■Misstatements  on 
A nt ivivisect io n" — and  in  various  allusions  which  are  scattered 
through  it,  there  is  apparently  the  suggestion  that  all  this 
opposition  to  hospital  experiments  upon  the  ignorant  and  poor, 
proceeds  from  antivivisectionists.  It  is  true  that  the  opponents 
of  animal  experimentation  have  been  strongest  in  their  oppo- 
sition to  human  vivisection,  but  there  are  hundreds  who  are 
not  antivivisectionists,  who  would  most  decidedly  condemn 
the  vivisection  of  Man.  Is  it  wise,  is  it  expedient,  is  it  accur- 
rate  to  give  the  former  all  the  credit  of  opposition  to  the  vile- 
ness  of  human  vivisection  ?  Can  Dr.  Keen  for  a  moment  fancy 
that  the  medical  profession  are  united  in  tacit  approval  of 
such  deeds?  There  will  be  a  vast  increase  in  the  number  of 
"antivivisectionists"  if  all  who  oppose  this  atrocity  must  be 
included  in  their  ranks. 

1.  We  shall  not  deny  that  in  his  microscopic  examination 
of  the  pamphlet.  Dr.  Keen  has  discovered  some  few  errors  of 
translators  or  transcribers,  which  of  course  will  be  corrected  in 
any  future  editions  of  Human  Vivisection.  These  German 
translations  were  made  by  European  writers,  and  considering 
their  source,  there  was  every  reason  for  belief  in  their  verbal 
accuracy.  For  none  of  them  was  the  American  Humane  Asso- 
ciation responsible  in  any  way  whatever.  But  the  point  we 
insist  upon  is  this :  that  such  errors  of  translation  as  exist, — 
such  liberties  with  the  text  involving  too  liberal  translations, 
such  abbrieviations  or  inaccuracies, —  pertain  to  but  few  cases, 
and  do  not  in  the  slightest  degree  change  or  mitigate  the  im- 
morality of  the  experiments  themselves. 

2.  In  one  point  only  has  Dr.  Keen  been  able  to  indicate  a 
serious  error  in  the  pamphlet  criticised.  This  mistake  concerns 
certain  experiments  made  by  Dr.  Sanarelli  upon  hospital 
patients  under  his  care,  by  inoculating  them  with  the  poison 
of  yellow  fever.     At  the  end  of  a  long  list  of  symptoms  pro. 


1 6  The  Reality  of  Human    Vivisection. 

duced  by  the  poison  in  tlie  unfortunate  victims,  Dr.  Sanarelli 
appends  the  Latin  word  in  italics — "■  collapsiisr^  Impressed 
with  its  emphasis,  and  its  place  at  the  end,  the  translator, 
doubtless  with  no  objectionable  intent — wrote  ''•final  collapse,^' 
where  the  adjective  should  have  been  omitted.  It  was  a 
serious  mistake,  for  it  led  to  a  statement  by  the  writer  who 
first  gave  it  publicity  that  it  was  "  understood  that  some,  if 
not  all  of  the  persons  inoculated  died  of  the  disease."  The 
translation  of  this  sentence,  and  the  deduction  to  which  it  led 
were  both  given  to  the  public  over  his  own  name  by  Mr. 
Rene  Bache  of  Washington,  D.  C,  a  well-known  writer  on 
scientific  subjects,  who  has  no  connection  whatever  with  the 
American  Humane  Association.^  Whoever  made  this  trans- 
lation, he  included  one  sentence,  actually  in  the  original  Italian, 
but  which  was  carefully  omitted — or  "  garbled  " — in  every 
other  translation  into  English  which  we  have  been  able  to 
find  in  the  medical  press.  Reference  will  be  made  again 
to  this  very  singular  circumstance. 

3.  Dr.  Keen's  imputation  of  "  garbled  quotation  "  is 
utterly  baseless  except  on  the  ground  that  the  parts  omitted 
in  the  pamphlet,  were  essential  to  any  fair  judgment  of  the 
morality  of  the  experimenter's  acts.  On  this  question,  we 
join  issue  with  him  without  hesitation.  He  insists  that  the 
accounts  of  certain  human  vivisections  contained  in  the  pamph- 
let, are  "  garbled,''  because  the  result  of  the  experi- 
ment— so  far  as  the  victim  is  concerned — was  not  always 
stated  ;  and  he  refers  to  this  omission  so  often,  as  to  imply 
that  he  regards  non-injury  to  the  victims  a  substantial  ex- 
cuse for  the  deeds.  Sanarelli  with  his  yellow  fever  venom 
("veleno  ")  makes  cruel  tests  upon  five  hospital  patients  en- 
trusted to  his  professional  care  ;  "  none  of  them  died,"  protests 
Dr.  Keen.  Fitch  of  San  Francisco,  while  at  Hawaii,  inoculates 
some  twenty  little  girls  with  the  virus  of  foulest  disease,  under 
circumstances  which  if  Dr.  W.  W.  Keen  dared  to  print  and 
publicly  to  sanction  and  repeat  in  Philadelphia  to-day,  it  would 
cause  him  to  be  hissed  and  hooted  from  the  city  in  which  he 
lives.     "  None  of  those  inoculated  took  the  disease,''  he  pleads  in 

*  We  give  the  exact  words  of  Dr.  Sanarelli  on  page  29  of  this  pamphlet. 
•fSee  the  Boston  Transcript,  September  24,  1897. 


TJie  Reality  of  Human    Vh'isection.  \y 

apparent  extenuation  of  the  vileness  which  he  dared  not  other- 
wise endorse.  Wentworth  makes  experiments  upon  sick  and 
dying  children  in  an  "  Infants'  Hospital  ;"  and  Dr.  Keen  hastens 
to  mitigate  criticism  by  showing  that  the  death  of  the  little 
ones  was  due  to  other  causes — all  unconscious  that  his  ex- 
cuse is  one  of  the  most  infamous  circumstances  of  the  deed, — 
it  was  dying  children  in  the  last  throes  of  death  that  were 
sometimes  used  as  "  material ''  for  these  human  vivisections. 
Berkley  makes  experiments  which  he  calls  ''poisoning  with 
preparations  of  the  thyroid  gland;"  it  was,  he  says,  "directly 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  toxicity  "  (or  poisonous 
qualities)  "of  one  of  the  best  known  varieties  of  the  thyroid 
gland,  that  the  following  series  of  experi^nents  were  under- 
taken ;  "  they  were  made  upon  "  eight  patients  of  the  City 
asylum  ;"  two  patients  became  "frenzied  "  and  of  these,  one 
died  ;  and  Dr.  Keen  is  loud  in  proclaiming  that  she  died  of 
"galloping  consumption," — as  if  now  and  by  this  excuse  he  had 
cleared  the  experimenter  from  every  stain  of  guilt !  Schreiber 
experiments  upon  forty  new-born  babes  ;  and  Dr.  Keen  is 
quick  to  explain,  that — according  to  the  experimenter, — no  evil 
results  were  experienced  by  the  victims.  Neisser  makes  a 
series  of  experiments  involving  inoculations  of  so  infernal  a 
character  that  their  publication  has  stirred  all  Germany  into 
indignant  protest;  the  London  Times  recently  reports  that 
Neisser  has  been  made  the  subject  of  judicial  investigation, 
and  that  for  merely  giving  publicity  to  his  diabolical  work  he 
has  been  ofificially  censured  and  heavily  fined."  Does  Dr.  Keen 
find  occasion  to  add  his  censure?  Does  he  condemn  Neisser  in 
any  way?  Does  he  utter  a  single  word  of  reprobation?  On 
the  contrary  he   rushes   forward   to   defend   him   by  assailing 

*  London  Times,  Saturday,  January  5,  1901.  To  show  how  the  Prussian 
(jovernment  regards  these  Neisser  experiments,  the  special  correspondent  of  the 
London  Times,  writing  from  Berlin,  January  4.  iQor,  makes  the  following  state- 
ment, which  we  commend  to  the  careful  attention  of  Dr.  Keen. 

"In  obvious  connexion  with  this  (Neisser)  case,  is  an  order  which  has  just 
heen  promulgated  by  the  Prussian  Minister  of  Public  Instruction.     The  order  says  ; 

'  I  hereby  call  the  attention  of  those  wlio  have  the  management  of  clinical  and 
F^olyclinical  Hospitals  and  similar  institutions  to  the  fact  that  medical  operations  for 
any  purposes  save  those  of  the  diagnosis,  cure  and  pretention  of  disease  are  forbid- 
din,  even  when  otherwise  permissible  from  the  legal  and  moral  point  of  view, — 
(i)    in    the   case   of   a   person    who   is  a  minor,   or  (who)    for  other  reasons  is  not 


1 8  The  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection. 

those  who  had  brought  his  wickedness  to  light  in  this  country, 
and  by  assuring  us — on  the  zvord  of  Neisser  ! — that  of  the  girl 
victims  (one  was  but  ten  years  old),  some  were  of  irregular 
life  !  Now  zvliat  have  all  these  excuses  to  do  with  the  essential 
immorality  of  the  experiments  or  the  utter  condemnation  their 
perpetrators  deserve  ?  Does  Dr.  Keen  for  one  moment  believe 
that  if  he  should  repeat  the  investigations  of  Fitch  or 
Neisser  by  inoculating  Philadelphia  children  with  the  foulest 
of  diseases,  he  could  escape  universal  execration  in  that  city 
by  placing  his  hand  upon  his  heart  and  afifirming — on  his  word 
of  honor, — that  by  good  fortune  they  escaped  injury,  or  else 
that  some  of  the  girl-victims  were  of  doubtful  repute  ?  He 
knows  better.  He  knows  that  he  would  not  dare  to  repeat 
their  experiments,  and  ever  hope  for  pardon  from  the  Amer- 
ican people  by  the  promulgation  of  such  a  plea.  Then  why 
does  he  bring  it  up  ?  Why  does  he  attack  the  American 
Humane  Association  for  omissions  in  regard  to  these  experi- 
ments of  his  friends,  which  could  not  in  the  slightest  degree 
mitigate  the  vileness  of  their  crimes? 

For  ourselves,  we  consider  utterly  valueless  all  statements 
concerning  the  fate  of  the  victims  of  human  vivisection  which 
rest  upon  the  unsupported  word  of  the  experimenter  himself. 
Dr.  Keen  tells  us,  for  instance,  that  none  of  the  patients 
experimented  upon  by  Dr.  X.  died  as  a  result  of  the  experi- 
ments, but  from  other  causes.  Well,  how  do  you  know  ? 
From  the  evidence.  Whose  evidence  ?  The  word  of  Dr.  X.  I 
Is  he  then,  likely  to  confess  the  truth  whenever  that  truth 
would  make  him  liable  to  a  criminal  investigation  ?  When  an 
insane  patient  is  choked  or  kicked  to  death  in  Bellevue  Hospi. 


entirely  responsible  ;  (2)  in  cases  where  the  person  in  question  has  not  explicitly 
given  permission  for  the  operation;  (3)  in  cases  where  this  permission //^j  ;?^/ 
been  preceded  by  a  proper  statement  of  the  injurious  consequences  which  might 
possibly  result  from  the  operation. 

I  likewise  order  that  operations  of  this  nature  shall  be  undertaken  only  by  a 
Director  of  the  Institution  himself  or  by  his  special  authorization.  Whenever 
such  an  operation  is  performed,  the  register  of  the  case  must  contain  a  statement 
that  the  above  conditions  have  been  fulfilled  and  must  also  give  a  detailed  account 
of  the  circumstances.  The  existing  regulations  affecting  medical  operations  for 
the  purposes  of  diagnosis,  cure  or  prevention  of  disease  are  not  affected  by  these 
instructions."— (Z£7;?^d)«  Tini-es.     January  5,  1901). 


Tlie  Reality  of  Human    Vivisection.  19 

tal  by  his  "  nurses,"  does  any  one  expect  them  to  come  forward 
and  tell  how  the  "unavoidable  accident"  really  occurred? 
Will  not  the  bruises  be  ascribed  to  "  a  fall,"  and  the  broken 
bones  to  a  peculiar  osseous  friability  ?  And  when  a  man  sinks 
to  the  moral  condition  of  an  experimenter  upon  human  flesh 
and  blood,  upon  little  children  confided  to  his  care  by  love 
and  solicitude,  Jiis  report  on  the  after-condition  of  his  victims 
may  have  some  special  and  peculiar  value  in  the  eyes  of  Dr- 
Keen,  but  we  can  assure  him,  it  possesses  very  little  for  the 
world  at  large.  We  believe  that  criminals  like  these  "  count  the 
hits  and  not  the  misses,''  as  Lord  Bacon  says  ;  and  that  when- 
ever there  is  good  reason  to  fear  consequences,  the  silence  of 
the  grave  hides  forever  their  crimes.  We  never  know,  for  a 
certainty,  the  result  of  a  human  vivisection,  when  an  adverse 
report  is  only  to  be  made  by  the  men  guilty  of  the  deed. 
Even  when  the  victims  actually  and  in  truth  escape  the  pos- 
sible contingency  to  which  they  were  subjected,  (we  repeat  it 
emphatically  for  Dr.  Keen's  elementary  instruction  in  morals), 
such  result  does  not  in  the  slightest  degree  mitigate  the 
essential  wickedness  of  the  experiment,  or  the  criminality  of 
that  physician  or  surgeon  who  can  stoop  to  the  commission  of 
such  infamous  acts. 

III. 

Has  Human  Vivisfxtion  been  Palliated  by  Sugges- 
tion OF  Conclusions  Contrary  to  Fact? 

We  come  at  last  to  the  most  serious  criticism  we  have  to  make 
of  Dr.  Keen's  letter.  In  defense  of  such  experimentation  or 
in  palliation  of  its  atrocity,  has  Dr.  Keen  repeatedly  suggested 
as  true,  conclusions  which  were  not  only  without  basis  of  fact, 
but  the  falsity  of  which, — if  he  had  stopped  to  reflect, — he 
must  assuredly  have  known  ?  Consciously  or  unconsciously 
has  he  again  and  again  sacrificed  veracity  to  expediency,  in 
anxiety  to  clear  his  friends  ?  We  are  not  imputing  to  him  the 
dishonor  of  deliberate  falsehood.  Should  he  declare  with 
uplifted  hands  that  every  word  he  has  ever  written  on  points 
hereafter  criticised  is  literally  true,  we  shall  not  argue  the 
matter.  We  believe,  however,  that  we  can  indicate  so  many 
instances  of  false   suggestion,    as  to  prove — from   a  scientific 


20  The  Reality^ of  Human   Vivisection. 

standpoint — the  utter  unreliability  of  everything  he  has  written 
regarding  human  vivisection.  Some  of  these  instances,  alone 
by  themselves,  might  be  regarded  as  of  slight  significance. 
Taken  collectively,  they  are  so  many  as  to  denote  an  inherent 
tendency  to  inaccuracy  in  his  mental  operations,  which  cannot 
be  gainsaid,  however  it  may  be  explained.  We  shall  refer  to 
more  than  a  dozen  instances  of  this  ''suggestion  of  the  false.'' 

I.  The  first  instance  is  less  in  the  very  statement  made 
before  the  Senate  Committee.  "  Of  experiments  narrated 
in  that  pamphlet,"  said  Dr.  Keen,  I  have  looked  u^i  every  one  I 
could.  Only  two  are  alleged  to  have  been  done  iit  America.''  Only 
"  two  experiments  ?  "  Why  Dr.  Wentworth  made  some  forty- 
five  experiments  on  infants  and  children,  some  of  them  in  a  dying 
condition  ;  Dr.  Berkley  tells  us  that  he  used  "  eight  human 
subjects  ;  "  we  call  that  fifty-three  experiments,  not  "  two." 
He  affects  indignation  at  "  the  imputation  of  untruthfulness," 
and  asks  President  Brown  to  point  out  "  a  third  instance  of 
experiments  done  in  America,"  and  mentioned  in  the  pamph- 
let. We  point  to  fifty  more  experiments  mentioned  in  the 
pamphlet  than  those  he  asks  for,  and  we  say  that  the  im- 
pression conveyed  by  his  language  is  contrary  to  facts. 

The  truth  is,  the  American  Humane  Association  did  not 
wish  to  make  any  more  exposure  of  the  evil  than  would  prob- 
ably suffice  to  prove  its  existance  and  tend  to  secure  con- 
demnation and  reform.  It  never  dreamed  that  an  educated 
and  reputable  medical  man  would  attempt  to  minimize  such 
facts,  or  give  an  impression  of  his  personal  ignorance  regard- 
ing so  notorious  an  evil.  Why,  if  the  American  Humane  As- 
sociation were  merely  to  quote  the  accounts  of  experiments 
made  upon  charity  patients  in  American  hospitals,  and  on 
record  in  medical  literature,  it  would  give  publicity  to 
researches,  some  of  which,  in  deliberate  diabolism  of  invention, 
equal  in  certain  respects  the  vilest  human  vivisections  of 
Europe  !  Will  Dr.  Keen  challenge  this  statement  and  assume 
responsibility  for  the  exposures  that  will  then  ensue  ? 

As  a  suggestive  indication  of  the  value  of  Dr.  Keen's 
assumption  of  ignorance,  let  us  cite  here  a  single  fact.  At 
the  Fifty-first  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Medical  Asso- 
ciation,  held    at   Atlantic    City,    N.    J.,  in    June,    1900,  a   Dr. 


77/1?  Reality  of  Huitian    Vivisection.  2t 

Bernheim,  of  Philadelphia,  presented  to  one  of  the  Sections 
an  account  of  some  twelve  experiments  he  had  made  upon 
human  beings, — six  upon  a  mulatto  and  six  on  a  "  woman 
patient."  These  researches  were  not  of  the  worst  character  ; 
but  still  they  were  expressions  of  tendency  toward  that 
disregard  of  human  rights  which  underlies  all  such  experiments 
on  the  ignorant  and  poor.*  Who  was  president  of  the 
American  Medical  Association  at  this  time?  Dr.  William  W. 
Keen. 

2.  Another  false  suggestion  is  the  use  of  the  word 
"alleged;"  certain  human  vivisections  are,  he  tells  us,  "alleged 
to  have  been  done."  Why  did  he  use  a  word  that  implies 
uncertainty  where  no  possible  doubt  really  existed  in  his 
mind?  We  do  not  say  the  sun  is  "alleged"  to  shine;  an 
allegation,  says  Dr.  Murray  in  his  great  dictionary,  is  "  an 
assertion  without  proof,  a  mere  assertion."  Now  Dr.  Keen 
had  not  the  slightest  doubt  of  the  Wentworth-Berkley  experi- 
ments, for  he  had  read  the  original  accounts  in  the  medical 
journals  containing  them.  To  speak  of  their  occurrence  as 
"  alleged  "  could  only  have  been  done  in  order  to  suggest  a 
doubt  where  he  knew  none  to  exist. 

3.  In  his  letter  to  the  President  of  the  Humane  Associ- 
ation Dr.  Keen,  says  :  "  You  depend  for  the  accuracy  of  your 
statements  upon  newspapers  as  follows:  "  and  he  prints  a  long 
list  of  journals  to  many  of  which  merely  passing  reference  had 
been  made, — entirely  suppressing  all  mention  of  the  medical 
books  or  journals  upon  whose  evidence  the  compilers  of  the 
pamphlet  relied.  He  knew  perfectly  well  that  these  new.s- 
papers  were  7iot  the  basis  upon  which  the  charges  of  experi- 
mentation rested,  but  he  knew,  too,  that  nine  out  of  ten  readers 
would  never  take  the  trouble  to  test  his  statement,  and  would 
believe — on  his  word, — that  the  proofs  of  such  experimenta- 
tion rested  on  vague  newspaper  report.  The  cancer-grafting 
experiments  to  which  we  have  before  alluded,  were  instances 
of  this  trickery.  Was  it  honorable  to  convey  impressions  so 
void  of  trutii  ? 

*  Journal  nf  the  American  Medical  Association.  Feliruary  16.  iqoi.  p.  .^29. 
In  the  same  issue  of  this  periodica!  is  an  account  of  certain  experiments  made 
regarding  yellow  fever,  upon  men  who  were  hired  to  suiimil  to  tiie  investigations. 
See  pp.  431,  447,  461. 


22  The  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection. 

4.  Upon  a  small  pamphlet,  or  tract,  (printed,  Dr.  Keen 
tells  us  in  Washington,  D.  C.)  he  expends  a  certain  measure  of 
criticism.  Having  never  seen  it,  we  do  not  know  whether  his 
imputations  concerning  it  are  well-founded  or  not.  But 
whatever  its  defects,  what  have  they  to  do  with  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Humane  Association?  Nothing  whatever.  And 
yet  Dr.  Keen  joins  both  pamphlets  in  one  criticism, — even 
numbering  his  paragraphs  as  if  both  publications  proceeded 
from  the  same  source!  He  knew  better.  Why  was  it  done  ? 
Simply  to  lengthen  his  letter,  and  somehow  to  give  to  the 
public  an  idea  of  responsibility  for  errors  where  he  knew 
there  was  none.  Was  it  honest  ?  Was  it  anything  else  but  a 
"  suggestion  of  the  false?  " 

5.  Still  another  instance  is  found  in  Dr.  Keen's  enumer- 
ation of  his  "evidences."  After  giving  names  of  fourteen 
newspapers  and  journals,  he  remarks  :  "  I  now  add  six  other 
'  vague  and  indefinite  references  '  not  to  newspapers  ;  "  and  he 
begins  by  referring  to  Tertullian  (upon  which  we  have  already 
commented)  numbering  this  paragraph  "  15,"  and  so  on  up  to 
"20."  His  meaning  is  clear;  he  desires  his  readers  to  believe 
that  he  has  named  fourteen  instances  of  "vague  and  indefi- 
nite "  authorities, — and  that  he  then  added  "  six  other  vague 
and  indefinite  references"  making  twenty  in  all.  Not  one 
reader  in  ten  would  perceive  that  this  conclusion  was  wholly 
false.  He  has  not  named  14  "vague  and  indefinite  "  refer- 
ences, and  he  does  not  add  "  six  more."  Of  the  fourteen 
journals  referred  to,  every  one  conveying  a  statement  of  fact- 
save  one, — had  its  name  and  date  of  publication  plainly  given  ; 
we  read  them  in  Dr.  Keen's  own  list ;  one  for  example  was  the 
London  Times  of  June  27,  1891.  To  call  such  references 
"vague  and  indefinite"  is  to  state  what  is  absurdly  untrue. 
Of  the  "  six  other  vague  and  indefinite  references,"  which  Dr. 
Keen  then  claims  to  add  to  his  list,  two  were  taken  from  the 
Washington  publication  which  Dr.  Keen  knew  perfectly  well 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  pamphlet  he  was  pretending  to 
review.  What  kind  of  principles  are  they  which  sanction 
trickery  like  this?  If  done  by  some  "  newspaper  writer," — for 
whom  he  has  so  profound  a  contempt, — would  Dr.  Keen  call 
it  anything  but  downright  literary  dishonesty  ? 


The  Reality  of  Human  Vivisection.  23 

6.  Referring  to  Dr.  Berkley's  well-known  experiments  on 
insane  patients,  Dr.  Keen  approaches  as  nearly  to  positive 
approval  of  them  as  language  could  well  imply.  One  passage 
in  his  letter  is  as  follows  : 

"  Moreover,  the  pamphlet  states,  that  '  there  is  no  intimation  that  the 
administration  of  the  poisonous  substance  was  given  for  any  beneficial  purpose  to 
the  patients,  for  he  took  care  to  select  patients  that  were  probably  incurable.'  On 
the  contrary,  Berkley's  original  paper  expressly  states  that  instead  of  being  incur- 
able ones  (Case  No.  i)  was  cured,  and  another  (No.  3)  was  improved."  (Italics 
ours). 

Did  Berkley  select  patients  that  tvere  probably  incurable  ? 
Dr.  Keen  says,  "on  the  contrary," — suggesting  that  Berkley 
did  nothing  of  the  kind.  Let  us  see  just  what  Berkley  him- 
self said  in  his  original  article. 

"  The  first  part  of  the  investigation  was  made  upon  eight  patients  at  the  City 
Asylum,  who,  with  one  exception  (No.  i),  had  either  passed,  or  were  about  to  pass, 
the  limit  of  the  time  in  which  the  recovery  could  be  confidently  expected."  (Italics 
ours). 

If  language  like  this  means  anything,  it  means  that  the 
patients  "with  one  exception"  were  not  likely  to  recover. 
Does  Dr.  Keen's  "on  the  contrary"  suggest  this? 

7.  Dr.  Keen  asserts  that  "  as  a  result  of  the  administra- 
tion of  the  thyroid  tablets  to  these  eight  patients,  .  .  .  two 
of  these  alleged  '  incurables  '  were  cured — 25  per  cent." 

This  is  a  suggestion  of  false  conclusions  of  the  most  pal- 
pable kind.  In  his  original  paper,  Berkley  made  no  pretense 
of  "curing''  Case  No.  3.  He  states  that  this  patient  at  the 
outset  was  "  good  tempered,"  and  weighed  "  at  beginning  of 
the  thyroid  administration  125  pounds."  After  fifteen 
days  of  the  drug  "  he  was  so  quarrelsome  it  was  necessary 
to  restrain  him,"  and  this  was  accompanied  by  other  unpleasant 
symptoms.  "The  administration  of  the  extract  being  now  dis- 
continued, he  regained  weight,  became  more  quiet,  and  after  the 
lapse  of  several  weeks  he  was  sent  to  his  friends  somewhat 
improved.''  In  other  words,  his  course  was  downward  until 
the  drug  was  discontinued,  and  only  after  the  lapse  of  weeks 
was  he  "somewhat  improved  !"  When  Dr.  Keen  included  this 
case  as  one  that  was  cured  "as  a  result  of  the  administration 
of  the  thyroid  tablets''  did  he  suggest  the  truth? 


24  The  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection. 

This  is  the  way  Dr.  Berkley  himself  speaks  of  these 
"  cures,"  and  the  "  treatment  "  generally  : 

"  The  above  experiment  upon  eight  human  subjects  points  out  conclusively  that 
the  administration  of  even  the  very  best  and  purest  of  the  commercial  dessicated 
thyroid  tablets  is  not  unattended  by  danger  to  the  health  and  life  of  the  patient." 
(Italics  ours) . 

We  commend  this  wise  conclusion  to  the  consideration  of 
those  patients  of  Dr.  Keen  to  whom,  he  tells  us,  he  has  given 
such  tablets  "  for  weeks  together  in  larger  doses  than  Dr.  Berk- 
ley used."  Did  they  know  that  their  treatment  was  "  not  un- 
attended by  danger  to  the  health  and  life  of  tJie  patient  ?  " 

8.  Still  another  instance  may  be  found  in  an  "  ADDEN- 
DUM "  to  Dr.  Keen's  letter,  wherein  he  compares  the  case  of 
a  cretin  child,  treated  by  the  thyroid  extract  in  a  perfectly 
proper  way,  with  Berkley's  experiments  upon  the  Insane. 
Dr.  Keen  knows  quite  well  that  the  two  cases  are  entirely  dis- 
tinct ;  the  purpose  of  one  was  the  cure  of  the  patient ;  the 
admitted  purpose  of  the  other  was  to  test  the  toxicity  of  a 
drug  ;  but  he  couples  them  together  as  if  they  were  alike  in 
all  respects.  He  says  distinctly  :  '^  If  Dr.  Berkley  s  use  of  the 
thyroid  extract,  which  cured  two  out  of  eight  patients  was  an 
experiment,  and  its  administration  by  Dr.  Nicholson  also  was 
an  experiment,  the  more  of  such  happy  ^experiments'  we  could 
have  the  better.''     (Italics  ours). 

Here,  within  the  compass  of  less  than  forty  words  we  have 
three  false  suggestions.  He  intimates  that  the  perfectly  proper 
use  of  the  thyroid  extract  by  Dr.  Nicholson  has  been  called 
an  '  experiment,'  which  is  untrue  ;  he  asserts  the  "  cure  " 
of  two  of  Berkley's  patients,  and  he  ridicules  the  idea  that  any 
experimentation  took  place.  We  have  tested  the  veracity  of 
one  suggestion  ;  let  us  see  what  degree  of  truth  is  in  another. 

Was  Berkley's  administration  of  the  thyroid  extract  in 
the  nature  of  regular  medical  treatment,  or  was  it 
experimental  in  character,  having  for  its  "  purpose,"  the  test- 
ing of  the  "  toxicity''  of  a  dangerous  drug?  The  answer  to 
this  inquiry  is  not  to  be  gained  by  quotations  from  Berkley's 
recent  defense,  but  by  noting  his  expressions  of  "  purpose  "  in 
the  original  article,  when  he  had  no  expectation  of  any  criti- 
cism. 


The  Reality  of  Human    Vivisection.  25 

In  the  first  paragraph  of  his  essay,  Dr.  Berkley  shows  his 
scepticism  regarding  the  drug  as  a  "  medicament."     He  says: 

"  The  favorable  side  of  the  administration  of  the  thyroid  extracts  is  shown  in 
the  very  numerous  articles  in  current  medical  literature  published  both  in  this 
countr}'  and  in  Europe.  .  .  It  is  quite  safe  to  say  after  a  review  of  some  of  tliem 
that  the  results  would  have  been  as  brilliant  had  no  medicament  been  administered. 

It  is  nevertheless  true  that  the  extract,  when  administered  to  either  man  or  the 
lower  animals,  will  occasion  very  grave  symptoms  of  a  toxemic  (poisonous)  nature  ; 
symptoms  that  involve  the  cerebral,  the  vasomotor,  and  digestive  functions  ;  and 
perhaps,  also,  the  normal  action  of  those  ductless  glands  that  throw  into  the  circu- 
lation a  potent,  though  unknown,  substance  ;  and  when  this  administration  is 
pushed  to  even  a  moderate  degree,  death  is  almost  the  invariable  result. 
A  medicament  having  these  qualities  cannot,  therefore,  be  administered  with  im- 
punity to  every  sane  or  insane  patient ;  and  it  was  therefore  directly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  the  toxicity  (poisonous  qualities)  of  one  of  the  best  known 
varieties  of  the  thyroid  extract  that  the  following  series  of  experiments  was  under- 
taken. The  first  portion  of  ttie  investigation  was  made  upon  eight  patients  at  the 
City  Asylum,  who,  with  one  exception  (No.  i),  had  passed  or  were  about  to  pass 
the  limit  of  time  in  which  a  recovery  could  be  confidently  expected.'*  (Italics 
ours). 

"  //"this  was  an  experiment  !  "  "  The  more  of  such  happy 
experiments  the  better  !  "  We  wonder  whether  Dr,  Keen's 
patients  share  his  enthusiasm  for  this  sort  of  happy  experi- 
ments upon  themselves  ? 

9.  But  there  are  phases  of  defense  of  far  more  serious 
import.  It  is  not  easy  to  imagine  a  physician  whose  con- 
science is  so  touched  with  atrophy  that  he  can  consent  to 
palliate  Human  Vivisection  even  by  accurate  statements  of 
what  he  may  consider  its  scientific  utility.  When,  however, 
we  find  one  not  merely  excusing  the  infamy,  but  suggesting 
excuses,  the  untruth  of  which  he  is  certainly  aware,  then, 
indeed  we  feel  that  the  limitations  of  permissible  advocacy 
have  been  more  than  reached. 

Take  the  case  of  Schreiber's  victim,  as  related  in  the  pam- 
phlet,— the  little  boy  whose  mother  was  ill  with  consumption 
but  who,  himself  was  apparently  sound  and  healthy. 
At  first  the  parents  refused  to  permit  their  child  to  be  inocu- 
lated as  an  experiment  ("anfangs  wolten  die  Eltern  die  injec- 
tion nicht  zulassen,")  but  at   last,    after  what  persuasions  we 


♦Bulletin  of  John  Hopkins  Hospital,  July,  1897.      I'oisoNiNG  with  prepara- 
tions of  the  Thyroid  Gland,"  by  Henry  J.  Berkley,  M.D. 


26  The  Reality  of  Human    Vivisection. 

can  never  know,  they  were  induced  to  grant  it  as  a  punish- 
ment for  some  trifling  offense,  and  it  produced  the  reaction 
looked  for.  Concerning  this  experiment  Dr.  Keen,  of  course, 
has  a  good  word: 

"  I  do  not  know  what  could  have  been  more  fortunate  for  this  boy  than  the 
recognition  in  its  incipiency  of  a  disease  previously  unsuspected,  and  which,  recog- 
nized thus  early,  should  in  all  probability  be  cured  by  proper  treatment.  This 
tuberculin  test  is  constantly  employed  to  prevent  the  spread  of  tuberculosis  in 
our  cattle.  In  our  children,  it  enables  us  to  discover  the  same  disease  in  an  early, 
curable  stage.     Shall  we  care  for  our  cattle  better  than  our  children?" 

As  an  example  of  the  art  of  false  suggestion,  this  paragraph 
is  a  masterpiece.  In  the  most  dextrous  manner  possible  the 
reader  is  invited  to  believe  that  what  Schreiber  intended  as 
an  experiment  was  very  proper  treatment  ;  that  tuberculin, 
as  a  test  for  incipient  consumption  is  as  suitable  for  children 
as  it  is  for  cattle;  that  it  is  so  regarded  and  so  employed  by 
the  medical  profession  in  their  general  practice;  that  to  decline 
using  it  to  discover  consumption  "in  an  early,  curable  stage," 
is  to  "  care  for  our  cattle  better  than  our  children."  And  yet 
every  one  of  these  deductions  would  be  false.  Dr.  Keen 
knows  perfectly  well,  in  the  first  place,  that  phthisis,  however 
early  discovered,  is  not  "  in  all  probability,^'  a  curable  ailment. 
He  knows  that  the  tuberculin  test,  so  often  used  upon 
apparently  sound, and  healthy  cattle,  is  not  sanctioned  by  the 
medical  profession  for  use  upon  apparently  sound  and  healthy 
children.  He  neglects  to  tell  us,  as  a  matter  of  no  account, 
that  of  the  three  experiments  made  by  Anders,  one  of  the 
victims  died  six  weeks  afterwards.  He  knows  that  experi- 
ments like  those  of  Schreiber,  made  upon  apparently  healthy 
children  of  poor  consumptive  mothers,  he  would  not  venture 
to  repeat  openly  upon  the  apparently  sound  and  healthy 
children  of  a  consumptive  mother  in  any  family  of  wealth  and 
influence  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia ;  and  that  if  such  a  test 
were  made  at  all,  it  would  be — as  Schreiber  made  it — where 
persuasion  counts,  and  ignorance  veils  results.  And  yet 
knowing  all  this,  he  has  the  supreme  audacity  to  put  a  ques- 
tion implying  the  recognized  use  of  tuberculin  upon  children 
who  seem  perfectly  sound  and  well: — '■'■  Shall  we  care  for  our 
cattle  better  than  for  our  childrenf 


TJie  Reality  of  Hicmaii    Vivisection.  27 

10.  Vox  Schreiber's  experiments  upon  40  new-born  babes 
by  injecting  tuberculin  in  increasing  doses,  we  know  in  ad- 
vance that  Dr.  Keen  will  try  to  discover  some  palliating  ex- 
cuse. In  this  case,  however,  none  is  apparent,  and  he  there- 
fore impudently  intimates  that  the  justification  existed  but 
that  the  pamphlet  suppressed  it.  "  It  would  be  too  much  to 
expect  your  Society  to  have  indicated  on  what  grounds  Pro- 
fessor Schreiber  was  led  to  the  employment  of  such  large 
doses,"  deftly  suggesting — without  any  positive  af^rmation — 
that  Schreiber  knew  in  advance  that  his  experiments  would  be 
harmless.  Now  Dr.  Keen  knew  perfectly  well  that  in  this 
suggestion  there  was  not  a  word  of  truth,  and  we  shall  prove  it 
by  Schreiber  himself.  So  far  from  being  confident  that  his  ex- 
periments were  harmless,  Schreiber  after  beginning  them  could 
not  sleep  for  thinking  of  zvhat  he  Jiad  done,  and  its  possible  con- 
sequences to  these  new-born  babes.  "  I  spent,"  he  says,  "  an 
almost  sleepless  night.  Before  me  I  seemed  to  see  the  poor  babes 
with  crimson  cheeks  and  violently-increasing  temperature  ; 
their  wailings  I  seemed  to  hear."  ^  It  is  true  that, — taking 
Schreiber's  word  for  it, — these  forebodings  were  unrealized, 
and  he  went  on  to  repeat  the  inoculations  with  constantly  in- 
creasing doses.  Dr.  Keen  has  no  word  of  censure  ;  apparently 
he  would  have  us  infer  it  was  all  right.  Would  he  be  willing 
to  have  thus  experimented  upon  at  the  hour  of  its  birth,  one 
of  his  own  children  ?  Does  he  fancy  that  in  the  sight  of 
the  Creator,  a  hospital-babe  is  less  sacred  than  his  own  favored 
offspring?  Because  it  is  poor  and  friendless,  has  it  no  rights? 
What,  we  wonder,  does  Dr.  Keen  think  would  have 
been  the  judgment,  upon  these  experiments,  of  Him  whose 
birthplace  was  only  a  manger,  and  who  sometimes  had  not 
where  to  lay  His  head? 

11.  This  perverse  instinct  of  inveracity  crops  out  every- 
where :  it  infects  even  a  simple  statement  of  fact.  For  in- 
stance, in  referring  to  Sanarelli's  inoculations  of  hospital 
patients  with  the  toxin  of  yellow  fever  Dr.  Keen  sees  a  chance 


*  "  Die  erste  Nacht  danach  liahe  icli  fast  sclilaflos  zugehracht  ;  ich  sah  im  voraus 
diearjnen  Kinder scbon  mit  hoclirotlieii  Wan^^en  uiid  }^ewaltit;er  1  einperatursteiger- 
ung  vor  micli  ;  icli  glaul>te  sie  vvimmern  zu  lioreii,  u.  s.  w.  von  allerdcin  war 
nichts." — Deut.  Med.   Wochenschrift,  Feb.  19,  1891. 


28  The  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection. 

to  confuse  the  impression,  and  straightway  informs  his  readers 
— as  if  it  were  of  the  utmost  importance, — that  the  pamphlet 
omitted  to  state  that 

"  Not  {.\\Q  gerfns  of  the  disease,  but  the  carefully  filtered  and  sterilized  i^erm- 
/reeHixid  was  used." 

Really  ?  Is  it  not  perfectly  evident  what  inference  Dr. 
Keen  wishes  here  to  suggest?  Could  any  reader  unfamiliar 
with  the  subject  imagine  that  this  "  carefully-filtered  and 
sterilized  ^erm-free  fluid  "  was  as  a  matter  of  fact  one  of  the 
most  virulent  of  poisons  ?  Sanarelli  tells  us  that  certain  experi- 
ments on  animals  led  him  to  suspect  "  the  existence  of  a  very 
active  specific  poison.  This  poison  is  obtained  by  simply  filter- 
ing the  broth-culture  of  bacillus  icteroides,  24  days  old."*  But 
Dr.  Keen  tells  it  that  it  is  not  only  "  germ-free,"  but  "  steril- 
ized','' why  is  that  done?  Because,  Sanarelli  tells  us,  "if 
cultures  sterilized  with  ether  are  employed,  the  toxic  {poison- 
ing) power  is  much  more  active''  How  thankful  we  should  be 
to  Dr.  Keen  for  his  little  contributions  to  popular  science  ! 
How  great  is  the  art  that  can  pervert  the  judgment  by  the 
statement  of  a  fact  ! 

12.  We  come  now  to  one  of  the  most  serious  charges  we 
have  to  make.  In  its  reference  to  Sanarelli's  experiments,  the 
pamphlet  on  Human  Vivisection  gave  as  authority  for  the  fact 
that  such  experiments  had  been  made,  the  British  Medical 
Journal,  quoting  also  a  single  sentence  from  the  New  Eng- 
land Medical  Monthly.  Although  there  is  nothing  of  the  kind 
mentioned  in  the  pamphlet.  Dr.  Keen  will  have  it  that  "  the 
extracts  marked  with  quotation  marks  are  from  the  New  Eng- 
land Medical  Monthly^'  and  having  evolved  this  from  his  inner 
consciousness,  he  goes  on,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  complain 
that  in  certain  respects  the  quoted  matter  does  not  verbally 
agree  with  the  source  to  which  he  has  arbitrarily  ascribed  it. 
The  truth  is,  that  the  pamphlet  nowhere  ascribes  the  quota- 
tion he  criticises  to  the  Nevu  England  Medical  Monthly ;  it 
distinctly  prefixes  to  this  citation  the  words,  "  Sanarelli  himself 
says:"  and  the  translation  which  follows  was  from  other 
sources. 

*British  Medical  Journal,  July  3,  1897. 


The  Reality  of  Human    Vivisection.  29 

But  worse  is  to  come.     Dr.  Keen  says  : 

"  Moreover,  the  end  of  the  quotation  is  as  follows  : — '  I  have  seen  [the  symp- 
toms of  yellow  fever]  unrolled  before  my  eyes,  thanks  to  the  potent  influence  of 
the  yellow  fever  poison  made  in  my  laboratory.'  This  entire  sentence  does  not 
occur  either  in  the  British  Medical  Journal  or  in  the  N'eiu  England  Medical 
Monthly.  Whether  it  is  quoted  from  some  other  source  not  indicated,  or  has  been 
deliberately  added,  I  leave  you     ...     to  explain." 

We  propose  to  speak  with  great  plainness  in  regard  to  this 
paragraph,  and  the  disgraceful  imputation  which  Dr.  Keen  has 
therein  put  forth. 

In  the  first  place,  this  most  cold-blooded  sentence,  (refer- 
ring to  the  "  yellow  fever  poison  made  in  my  laboratory,"  and 
the  long  list  of  symptoms  "  unrolled  before  my  eyes),"  which 
Dr.  Keen  cannot  find  in  the  medical  journals  named,  %vas  in 
Sanarelli  s  own  words.  We  give  them  in  the  original  Italian, 
transcribed  from  the  volume  to  which  Dr.  Keen  himself  refers 
us.* 

"  La  febbre,  le  congestioni,  le  emorragie,  il  vomito,  la  steatosi  del  fegato,  la 
cefalalgia,  la  rachialgia,  la  nefrite,  I'anuria,  I'uremia,  I'ittero,  il  delirio,  il  collapsus 
— infine,  tutto  quel  complesso  di  elementi  sintomatici  ed  anatomici,  che  nel  loro 
apprezamento  coml^inato  constituiscono  la  base  indivisible  della  diagnosi  di  febbre 
gialla,  noi  I'abbiamo  visto  svolgersi  ai  nostri  occhi, — doviito  alia  potente  influenza 
del  veleno  amarilUgeno  fabricato  nelle  nostri  culture  artificiali." 

There  are  the  words,  translated  and  given  to  the  world  by 
the  pamphlet  on  Human  Vivisection,  but  garbled  and  sup- 
pressed by  every  medical  publication  in  England  or  America  ! 
True  indeed  it  is,  that  when  men  attempt  to  defend  an  infamy, 
"either  the  moral  sense  is  blunted,  or  the  truth-telling  faculty 
is  in  abeyance. "f 

But  we  have  not  finished  with  Dr.  Keen.  When  he  made 
the  imputation  that  because  these  words  were  not  in  certain 

*  Annali  d'  Igiene  Sperimentale,  1897.     Vol.  VII.,  p.  470. 

f  This  garbling  of  Sanarelli's  words  was  probably  made  by  some  one  con- 
nected with  the  British  Medical  Journal,  for  the  first  appearance  of  the  mutilated 
sentence  was  in  this  periodical. July  3,  1897.     It  read  thus  : 

"  The  fever,  the  congestions,  .  .  .  delirium,  collapse  ;  in  short,  all  that 
complex  of  symptomatic  and  anatomical  elements  which  in  their  combination,  consti- 
tute the  indivisible  basis  of  the  diagnosis  of  yelloiv  fever. 

Any  educated  reader  must  see  at  once  lliat  this  sentence  is  imperfect  and  in- 
complete ;  where  ir  the  verb?  Did  it  not  occur  to  Dr.  Keen,  that  only  as  printed 
in  llie  pamphlet  Human  Vivisection,  could  the  sentence  be  said  to  lie  grammatic- 
ally correct?  The  reason  for  this  garbling  is  of  course  evident  :  it  was  too  plain  a 
confession  of  human  vivisection. 


30  The  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection. 

medical  journals,  they  were  perhaps  '^deliberately  added''  by 
his  opponents,  was  he  not  perfectly  aware  that  Sanarelli  him- 
self wrote  them?  Dr.  Keen  refers  us  to  the  very  article  of 
Sanarelli,  from  which  we  have  just  quoted  them;  he  consulted 
its  many  pages  most  carefully  in  order  to  ascertain  the  alleged 
fate  of  the  five  patients  upon  which  the  experiments  were 
made.  Did  he  not  see  this  sentence  there?  With  the  volume 
in  his  hands,  the  original  article  open  before  his  eyes,  would 
he  have  us  believe  that  he  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  compare 
and  verify  the  only  quotation  from  it  which  appears  in  the  pam- 
phlet? He  did  not  see  it?  Credat  Judcens  Apella  !  There 
are  limitations  to  credulity.  But  how  queer  must  be  that  sense 
of  honor  which  would  permit  a  man  to  make  a  disgraceful 
imputation,  knowing  all  the  while  that  every  word  of  it 
was  false ! 

We  have  by  no  means  touched  upon  all  that  is  worthy 
of  criticism  in  this  remarkable  letter.  We  have  sufificiently 
demonstrated  its  innate  unreliability,  its  unfairness,  its  fre- 
quent paltering  with  truth.  It  is  astonishing  that  one  occu- 
pying Dr.  Keen's  position  in  the  medical  profession  should  so 
completely  fail  to  comprehend  the  intensity  of  protest  and 
indignation  sure  one  day  to  be  evoked  regarding  all  who 
either  practice  or  defend  these  atrocious  and  execrable 
experiments  upon  their  fellow-men.  But  the  most  signifi- 
cant point  of  all,  seems  to  us  that  entire  absence  of  any  sympa- 
thy for  the  victims  which  marks  his  communication.  Every- 
thing is  set  forth  that  could  help  in  any  way  to  turn  aside 
criticism  regarding  the  experimenters ;  could  not  Dr.  Keen 
have  spared  as  well,  a  few  words  of  pity  for  those  who  were 
the  victims  of  so-called  "research?"  He  is  inclined  to  make 
merry  over  "  scientific  assassination  that  did  not  assassinate, 
and  murder  of  those  who  were  so  disobliging  as  still  to  live!  " 
It  strikes  us  that  this  tone  of  levity  is  decidedly  out  of  place. 
How  does  Dr.  Keen  know  that  the  victims  of  Sanarelli  are 
still  alive?  These  experiments  on  hospital  patients, — for 
which  Dr.  Keen  has  here  no  word  of  censure, — may  not  have 
lacked  in  the  end,  the  death  of  the  victim  to  complete  the 
tragedy.  Reading  Sanarelli's  own  account  of  the  agonies 
endured  by  his  victims,  the  '' violent  a  cefalalgia^'  the  "■dolori 


The  Reality  of  Human    Vivisection.  3 1 

lancina?iti,"  the  ''tenisnio  spasmodica,"  Xhe.^'  voitiito  incoercibile," 
the  '''viva  lanientazioni''  we  are  quite  sure  that  the  Hospital 
of  San  Sebastian  was  no  place  for  mirth.  Nor  was  the  final 
result  of  these  experiments  so  innocent  as  their  apologist 
would  have  us  believe.  If  a  child  of  Dr.  Keen  were  thus 
unconsciously  inoculated  with  "the  carefully  filtered  and 
sterilized  germ-free''  toxin  of  yellow  fever,  and  made  to  suffer 
day  after  day  all  the  torments  that  Sanarelli  has  so  vividly 
described;  and  if,  after  the  fever  had  abated,  a  few  '*  explora- 
tive punctures"  were  made  in  his  liver  and  kidneys,  "{varie 
punture  esplorative  dal  fegato  e  dai  reni'')  revealing  a  pro- 
found fatty  degeneration  of  the  one  and  granular  degeneration 
in  the  other,  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  such  endowment 
of  his  offspring  with  the  beginnings  of  organic  disease  and  the 
probabilities  of  shortened  life  would  be  regarded  as  "scientific 
assassination  "  even  by  the  man  who  now  scoffs  at  the  phrase.* 
No,  Dr.  Keen  ;  by  the  side  of  these  wan  and  wasted  victims, 
there  is  no  occasion  for  your  sarcasm,  no  place  for  your 
taunts.  Rather  were  it  fitting  that  in  sackcloth  and  ashes,  in 
humiliation  and  remorse,  you  laid  hands  on  your  lips  and  your 
forehead  in  the  dust,  remembering  with  shame  that  when  the 
infamies  of  human  vivisectors  were  unveiled,  and  men  called 
in  the  name  of  Humanity  for  their  condemnation,  j^'^/^r  voice 
was  silent,  and  your  lips  at  last  opened  only  for  vague  and 
glittering  generalities  of  reproof,  for  ridicule  of  charges  you 
knew  were  substantially  true,  for  defense  even  of  the  vivisec- 
tors of  children,  in  palliation  of  the  vilest  crimes. 

Yet  we  are  not  hopeless  of  the  future.  Centuries  ago,  to 
one  who  had  stood  by  dying  men,  "  consenting  unto  their 
death,"  there  came  at  last  a  voice  that  he  could  not  but  heed, 
and  a  light  that  "  suddenly  shining  round  about  him,"  smote 
him,  blinded,  to  the  earth.  Perchance  to  others  may  yet  come 
some  journey  to  Damascus,  the  light  of  rebuke  and  warning, 
the  lesson  of  penitence  and  expiation.  O  Divine  fustice ! 
Thou  that  tarrying  long,  yet  steepest  not  nor  slumberest, 
Power  not  ourselves  that  makes  for  Righteousness, — hear  our 
prayer  I      For    the    sake    of   infants  yet    unborn,    for   whom 


* "  Una  profunda   degenerazione    grassa   di  tutte   le   cellule  epatiche,"    etc. 
"Anitali  d  I^iene  Spermentale,"  vol.  vii.,  p.  445. 


32  The  Reality  of  Human   Vivisection. 

some  Menge  or  Schreiber  in  his  laboratory,  waits, — for  the 
sake  of  innocent  girlhood  and  sacred  motherhood,  not  yet 
stretcJied  upon  the  altar  of  a  God-less  science, — for  the  sake 
of  our  poor,  outraged.,  common  humanity, — grant  that  all  who 
practice  or  uphold  these  deeds  of  shame,  all  who  encourage 
and  defend  these  criminals.,  may  soon  be  touched  zvith  sincerest 
repentance,  or  meet  some  just  and  redeeming  retribution, — even 
though  it  come  with  keen,  and  bitter.^  and  life-long  remorse. 


DATE  DUE 

MC 

1  f  HMM 

'  c>  yf% 

^fC27f) 

w 

Demco.  Inc.  38-293 

""m^^^^UBRAmi; 


j^jnS^ 


QP45 


humane  association. 


l^rican  nwu.--  -  ^^seotion. 

The  reali^y^^,,^,,.==— 


